Even after 47 years, how prepared we are to face China??

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...being-govt-think-tank/articleshow/4886609.cms

follow the latest link...

"It is simply a piece written by an ordinary netizen. The Indian scholar said it is a study by a government-run think-tank. This is ridiculous," Kang told TNN in an exclusive interview. The website today published a clafirication saying it represented no government body. Kang said he has also sent a fax with the clarification to the Indian embassy.
 
If Not we should be ready!!!

I think war is not just warfare. Just same way that we read in history books about reason of French defeated by British in india even when french are more stronger,better relation with local rajah. So We should prepare and the main areas of interest are
1. Continuous Fuel supply even during peak war time. For Movement of Warfare and smooth functioning of economic machinery.
2. Robust Communication system that not even US and China can compromise.
3. Neighbor countries Nepal,Bangladesh,Bhutan and Sri Lanka Under influence from our side for Economic,Social and diplomatic reasons.
4. Take Good Position in UN and should make some Distinct move in International Politics. Who ask India during Afganistan,Iran invasion.
5. Less Dependence on US and Other countries technology for main Line of Defence and attack.
6. In House R&D in warfare, communication,monitoring and keep the thing undercover with Prooven results.
7. Strong monitoring, Protection and attack functionality on Border and strategic location.

And many more like this. This is just like we get richer we put more emphasis on security and the one with prior and own method of protection is always better in position to defend itself.

This in general and not for china alone.Think tobe no one power and just behave like one. If we are better prepare in every front, we would be super power or NUMERO UNO, Right?
 
To set the record straight, US did not loose Militarily in Vietnam. US withdrew from Vietnam after handing over control to the South Vietnamese who got wiped out by the North Vietnamese.

Strategically, the US did loose in Vietnam because they did not acheive their goal of having a unified Vietnam under a Western-backed Government.

Coming to the point of China, I don't think we are in any shape or form prepared to face them. The greatest reason for that is the guiding ideology of our respective Militaries. For the Chinese, Military service is a voluntary act to serve the nation. In India, Military service is a job. Now, I know the daggers will come out for what I am about to say. But the fact of the matter is that for a great majority of our Military personnel atleast from the current generation, their service is just a job that pays the bill. There are a few who serve because of patriotic reason. But, the military is mostly staffed by people who just wanted a job.

For the above reason alone, we will never be able to match the Chinese military that fights for the motherland and not because their service to their nation pays their bills.

I am not even taking the technological factors into equation.

China is playing its cards right. It understands that a full-blown Military conflict with India will hurt its economic interests. So, I beleive China is funding and pushing various insurgencies across India. They are trying to achieve the break-up of India in a gradual manner that does not cause sudden economic shocks in the region.

One of th first things I learned in the US was that the only good communist is a dead communist. I further beleive that anything more dangerous than a communist is a Chinese communist. These folks are vile and twisted. We should have always been on the lookout for them. They have been stabbing Indians in their backs for long enough either by fanning insurgencies in India or by feeding their lead attack dog called Pakistan.

If India really wants to have a viable Military force in the future, they need to start from scratch and reorganize it as a totally voluntary force with no financial incentive for those who sign-up. National service should be the only incentive.
 
To set the record straight, US did not loose Militarily in Vietnam. US withdrew from Vietnam after handing over control to the South Vietnamese who got wiped out by the North Vietnamese.

Strategically, the US did loose in Vietnam because they did not acheive their goal of having a unified Vietnam under a Western-backed Government.

Coming to the point of China, I don't think we are in any shape or form prepared to face them. The greatest reason for that is the guiding ideology of our respective Militaries. For the Chinese, Military service is a voluntary act to serve the nation. In India, Military service is a job. Now, I know the daggers will come out for what I am about to say. But the fact of the matter is that for a great majority of our Military personnel atleast from the current generation, their service is just a job that pays the bill. There are a few who serve because of patriotic reason. But, the military is mostly staffed by people who just wanted a job.

For the above reason alone, we will never be able to match the Chinese military that fights for the motherland and not because their service to their nation pays their bills.

I am not even taking the technological factors into equation.

China is playing its cards right. It understands that a full-blown Military conflict with India will hurt its economic interests. So, I beleive China is funding and pushing various insurgencies across India. They are trying to achieve the break-up of India in a gradual manner that does not cause sudden economic shocks in the region.

One of th first things I learned in the US was that the only good communist is a dead communist. I further beleive that anything more dangerous than a communist is a Chinese communist. These folks are vile and twisted. We should have always been on the lookout for them. They have been stabbing Indians in their backs for long enough either by fanning insurgencies in India or by feeding their lead attack dog called Pakistan.

If India really wants to have a viable Military force in the future, they need to start from scratch and reorganize it as a totally voluntary force with no financial incentive for those who sign-up. National service should be the only incentive.

Bhai, aap sach nahe bol rahe ho. US did Lose big time in vietnam. After French lost to north vietnamese, US jumped in for easy kill. Par aisa hua naheen. dheere dheere US ne apne military increase kar dee. Par sare ladai ke baad bhi America haar gaya north vietnamese see. withdrawl is same as defeat.
Par aap ek baat batao.
sachi sachi.:D
kaun bawla beger paise ke bandook lee kar apni jaan gawae ga?:confused:
bhai aap ne ek dialogue mara hae: a good communist is a dead communist.:D
Par aap ek baat batao
sachi sachi:D
america apna saara retail saman China made kyon buy karta hae.:D
isliye tha mera dialogue: china ne america ki baals pakdi hue hae.:D
ek baat aap ki sachi hae: China is playing its cards right.:D
 
Coming to the point of China, I don't think we are in any shape or form prepared to face them. The greatest reason for that is the guiding ideology of our respective Militaries. For the Chinese, Military service is a voluntary act to serve the nation. In India, Military service is a job. Now, I know the daggers will come out for what I am about to say. But the fact of the matter is that for a great majority of our Military personnel atleast from the current generation, their service is just a job that pays the bill. There are a few who serve because of patriotic reason. But, the military is mostly staffed by people who just wanted a job.

You got a point Sumit, I agree with you that numbers of such type of people are ever increasing in Army but still there are many who took Army as a service/passion not as a career.
And I strongly believe that when the right time comes these passionate army personnel will not only give their best to defend the country but will also inspire their other fellow to do justice with the duty and oath they have taken while joining the service.
 
Well I welcome a civil comment from you. So far you have been nothing sort of a nuisance but I appreciate your more civil approach on this forum. If you stick to this approach, I would love to engage you in our discussions. So, once again keep it up!

Bhai, aap sach nahe bol rahe ho. US did Lose big time in vietnam. After French lost to north vietnamese, US jumped in for easy kill. Par aisa hua naheen. dheere dheere US ne apne military increase kar dee. Par sare ladai ke baad bhi America haar gaya north vietnamese see. withdrawl is same as defeat.

Unlike what most of the anti-American academics and intellects would want you to believe, the US did not withdraw from Vietnam for military reasons. It withdrew because it had tried too long to prop up a South-Vietnamese government that was strong enough to run the entire country. For nearly 15 years the US would fight back the north Vietnamese and gain territory and hand it over to the South-Vietnamese, who in turn would loose it back to the North in a matter of days. This repeated trend was costing the US a lot of blood and treasure. The war had stretched too long and it was becoming a politically unpopular back home. Richard Nixon won his second term on the promise of withdrawing and he honored it by doing so.

US had a strategic goal of having a Soviet/Maoist-free South-East Asia. This goal was not being achieved by the way the South-Vietnamese were failing to fight for their country. The war had stretched too long for this strategic goal to be met. The US eventually withdrew because it wasn't worth it anymore to continue propping up the South-Vietnamese regime.

The US did not loose a single Military battle in Vietnam, yet lost war in terms of strategic goals. There is not academic or intellect including those who have a problem with everything the US does, who would deny this statement.

Par aap ek baat batao.
sachi sachi.:D
kaun bawla beger paise ke bandook lee kar apni jaan gawae ga?:confused:

I believe people should sign up for military service for patriotic reasons only. If you want a job then go flip burgers at a restaurant or straighten out the shelves at a supermarket.

Here in the US, I see that people largely sign up with the military because they want to serve their country. Of course there are benefits but you have to survive the average four-year contract before you become eligible for anything.

There are some who try to make it look like the military recruiters are duping kids to meet their quotas. That is true to some extent. But, from my own personal experience, people in the military here have a very high morale and love what they do.

There are some who feel it sucks, but they signed up for all the wrong reasons. Military was never an option for them.

People in general, including even those who hate the US military; hold US service members in high regards. You should see the funeral processions of the fallen. Entire towns come to a standstill and flags across the country fly at half mast.

This is the spirit that propels the US military in wartime. When troops drop out of the Black Hawks in a remote part of the world they know that their loved ones will be taken care of by a grateful nation in case they never made it back into the chopper.

bhai aap ne ek dialogue mara hae: a good communist is a dead communist.:D
Par aap ek baat batao
sachi sachi:D
america apna saara retail saman China made kyon buy karta hae.:D
isliye tha mera dialogue: china ne america ki baals pakdi hue hae.:D

There are two reason for why the US is flooded with Chinese goods. The first being that both the US and China are part of the WTO. Both countries cannot restrict the flow of certain goods manufactured by each other that fall on a list agreed upon by the two countries.

The second reason is that the US is restructuring its manufacturing infrastructure to meet the demands of a more integrated world where free-trade is going to move a lot of jobs. The US is using the resources that would have been used to manufacture goods that can be made in China for lower marginal and opportunity costs and invest those resources in a new infrastructure that would create jobs that cannot be shipped overseas. These goods include technologies and services that will eventually be sold in countries like China.

The US is going through a turbulent economic phase. But I can assure you that it will emerge out of it stronger than before.

US is a free-market system that promotes the free flow of ideas an innovation. China is just the opposite. Manufacturing stereos and t-shirts and flooding the store in the US with those items is not going to take China anywhere in the long run.

US may have its problems. But, like the Sun holds the solar system together, the US is the center of the world and the whole world revolves around it.
 
एक कहावत सी स .....

किसी मास्टर ने पूछी - शेर "अंडे" देता है कि "बच्चे" ?
बालक बोला - मास्टर जी, शेर जंगल का "राजा" ...इब उसकी मर्जी "अंडे" दे कि "बच्चे" दे

तो भाई चीन कि मर्जी जो करेगा सो करेगा ..... ठाडा पड़े स ...बात इ ख़तम हुयी आगे कि ...



PS: ghanaa kasoota serious discussion chaal ra tha uper... so maine thode sa light soudda gair diya... situation ne thoda sa ease-out karan khatir ....enjoy kariyo




.
 
Last edited:
The consensus as 2008 began held that America was in decline, no longer capable of exerting global leadership;that the year of Beijing Olympics
would represent China's emergence as a strong, secure, propsperous modern power; that India was at last entering a period of rapid and stable economic growth; and most important thing, that economic and political power was plainly shifting to Asia but the Western powers were failing
to recognize it.

Assumptions that Asia is in any way homogeneous, that its emerging powers could or would decouple themselves from the Westeran economies, that the progress of China and India will be steady and straight forward, that they would soon take ocer global leadership from the west, all need to be thrown aside.The could or would, may or might depends upon these countries actual condition today.

If we look at China, for Chinese officials,the international multi sport(Beijing Olympics) event was a successful hosting. But the choice of China as a host country was a subject of criticism by some politicians and Non-government organizations concerned about China's human rights record.Web and media cencership, supression of negative views, enviormental and health issues etc were the main concerns during the whole event.The simple of view of modern China faces more chalanges like uprising that took place in March 2008 in the Tibetan capital, Lhasa leaving 200 people dead and many in custodies.. The exile of spiritual leader Dalai Lama(true friend of USA) from Tibet in 1959 has always been an issue for china.The violent incident that broke out between Muslim Uighurs and Han Chinese during the Olympics and in july this year is another issue where economic development has not eliminated or even softened the divisons within china itself.

India looks more complex, and sometimes weaker, than the smooth, powerful impression sometimes given but its image as a rising super power. The excruciatingly slow progress made by Indian government in ratifying the country landmark civil nuclear-energy deal with the USA.Corruption,terrorism,conflict across the borders are the major factors which make Indian economy growth unpredicatble.

USA foreign policies towards China and India

Western recognition of the new importance of China, India and other emerging giants can be found when President George Bush convened a summit of world leaders in Washington DC, in Novemmber 2008 that consisted not of the traditonal "G8" of rich, industrial countries but rather the "G20".

China's threat to USA can be argued and justified by hasty US close ties with India in last couple of years.ven after Nuclear test in 1998 and trade sanction imposed on India, United States signed a nuclear deal to cast aside fourty years of hostility and suspicion between two countries.Although there is a huge stake involved in the nuke deal but still that is not a possible reason for that. The Bush administration desire to give India an exceptional status- that is supplying it with nuclear fuel despite its not signing the NPT and despite the fact that under the deal only fourteen of its twenty-two nuclear reactors are to be subject to inspection by IAEA(International Atomic Energy Agency).

Why all of sudden, United states is closing ties with India.If we go back into 1970 era,Richard Nixon presidency was dominated by failure of Vietnam war and by Watergate.His dramatic opening of relations with China in 1972, which brought to an end of bitter estrangement between the United States and the people's republic.Richard Nixon had used China to balance Soviet union, and Bush was using India to balance China.And Barack Obama could not be more different from President Bush.Again divide and rule policy.
 
Last edited:

Well I am not advocating the disintegration of India, but somebody needs to look at this scenario with a cool head.

There are various separatist insurgency movements going on in India that use questionable means and are funded and supported by various foreign entities that have their own anti-India agenda.

But some of these separatist movements have valid points. The naxals are revolting as a result of lower strata of our society being left out of the nation's development. The poor farmers in far flung parts of India have been left by the Government at the mercy of the almighty himself. They are not being provided by adequate infrastructure for farming. repeated droughts have left vast swaths of India highly impoverished.

Then there are the Maoists who have taken up arms in the Bihar-Bengal region who complain about mistreatment at the hands of government and para-military forces.

There are those in the eastern states who just feel like being a protectorate of New Delhi and have nothing in common with the rest of the country. Had the British not left them at India's mercy they would have never been a part of the country.

How can you expect to hold the country together with so many dissatisfied citizens. Instead of addressing their concerns the government deploys paramilitary forces that commit further abuses and throw fuel on fire by further enraging a disaffected populace.

I mean what is the point that Indians are trying to make when they say they they will never let India break up into different parts. Yes its possible to have a united India. But there is no point in having a country that is hollow from within. A country in which people do not want to be part of the union lacks the soul that turns it into what we know as a nation.

I think people should strop fretting about the breakup of India and instead focus on dealing with its internal problems. India is in the 21st century with a 19th century style of government. The world is smaller and better integrated. It takes less effort and resources for disaffected people to get together and pack a punch towards the government.

If India does not change the way it deals with its people, I am afraid to say that India will eventually breakup some day.

Addendum: What I have said also applies to China. Just replace the word India with China and the provinces with Xingjiang and Tibet and you will realize that India and China face similar challenges when it comes to their unity and sovereignty.
 
Sumit,

Quite valid points.

So, who is this India? The politicians, or the beaurocratic elite? Or, we the people who cannot hold our “so called” representatives responsible for promises, or accountable for poor administration?

Regards,
Anju
Well I am not advocating the disintegration of India, but somebody needs to look at this scenario with a cool head.

There are various separatist insurgency movements going on in India that use questionable means and are funded and supported by various foreign entities that have their own anti-India agenda.

But some of these separatist movements have valid points. The naxals are revolting as a result of lower strata of our society being left out of the nation's development. The poor farmers in far flung parts of India have been left by the Government at the mercy of the almighty himself. They are not being provided by adequate infrastructure for farming. repeated droughts have left vast swaths of India highly impoverished.

Then there are the Maoists who have taken up arms in the Bihar-Bengal region who complain about mistreatment at the hands of government and para-military forces.

There are those in the eastern states who just feel like being a protectorate of New Delhi and have nothing in common with the rest of the country. Had the British not left them at India's mercy they would have never been a part of the country.

How can you expect to hold the country together with so many dissatisfied citizens. Instead of addressing their concerns the government deploys paramilitary forces that commit further abuses and throw fuel on fire by further enraging a disaffected populace.

I mean what is the point that Indians are trying to make when they say they they will never let India break up into different parts. Yes its possible to have a united India. But there is no point in having a country that is hollow from within. A country in which people do not want to be part of the union lacks the soul that turns it into what we know as a nation.

I think people should strop fretting about the breakup of India and instead focus on dealing with its internal problems. India is in the 21st century with a 19th century style of government. The world is smaller and better integrated. It takes less effort and resources for disaffected people to get together and pack a punch towards the government.

If India does not change the way it deals with its people, I am afraid to say that India will eventually breakup some day.

Addendum: What I have said also applies to China. Just replace the word India with China and the provinces with Xingjiang and Tibet and you will realize that India and China face similar challenges when it comes to their unity and sovereignty.
 
Totally agree with you...
एक कहावत सी स .....

किसी मास्टर ने पूछी - शेर "अंडे" देता है कि "बच्चे" ?
बालक बोला - मास्टर जी, शेर जंगल का "राजा" ...इब उसकी मर्जी "अंडे" दे कि "बच्चे" दे

तो भाई चीन कि मर्जी जो करेगा सो करेगा ..... ठाडा पड़े स ...बात इ ख़तम हुयी आगे कि ...



PS: ghanaa kasoota serious discussion chaal ra tha uper... so maine thode sa light soudda gair diya... situation ne thoda sa ease-out karan khatir ....enjoy kariyo




.
 
.

An eye-opening article from Bharat Verma, Editor Indian Defence Review. (India’s best known military publication)

China will launch an attack on India before 2012.

There are multiple reasons for a desperate Beijing to teach India the final lesson, thereby ensuring Chinese supremacy in Asia in this century. The recession that shut the Chinese exports shop is creating an unprecedented internal social unrest. In turn, the vice-like grip of the communists over the society stands severely threatened.


http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2009/08/unmasking-china.html

 
Back
Top